Request for Production – Page 11

Playing with Fire: Producing ESI as Paper

January 30, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, Document Review, e-Discovery, Form of Production, Motion to Compel, Request for Production

“…Revonet’s producing the e-mails only in hard copy played with fire. ” Magistrate Judge John Facciola, Covad Communications Company v. Revonet, Inc. I have blogged on parties failing to state a form of production in prior postings and producing parties attempting to produce ESI as paper or non-searchable TIFFs. In[…]

One Pesky Requirement for a Motion to Compel e-Discovery

January 10, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, e-Discovery, Metadata, Motion to Compel, Native File, Request for Production

There is no shortage of case law on motions to compel native files, metadata and all things dealing with the form of production. However, there is one basic requirement for a motion to compel: You have to have a request for production first. Most motion to compel train wrecks[…]

What Happens When the Requesting Party Does Not State a Form of Production?

January 8, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, Document Review, Duty of Care, Form of Production, Motion to Compel, Request for Production

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34 allows for a requesting party to state the form of production in their request. In the event a requesting party does not state the form of production, the responding party can state the form of production in their reply. However, if no party[…]

e-Discovery: Not like Reviewing a Box of Paper

January 7, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, Document Review, e-Discovery, Request for Production

Treating e-Discovery review the same as a paper-based document review runs the risk of shattering the litigation process. In Oracle v. SAP, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88319, the estimated cost of reviewing 165 custodians was projected as $16.5 million. This included the defendants employing more than fifty contract attorneys and[…]

Be Careful What You Ask For, Because Someone Just Might Produce It

January 6, 2009 Josh Gilliland e-Discovery, Motion to Compel, Processing, Request for Production, Search Terms

There were three big “search term” cases in 2008 by Magistrate Judges John Facciola and Paul Grimm (both of whom also wear bow ties).[1] In United States v. O’Keefe, Judge Facciola wrote, “…for lawyers and judges to dare opine that a certain search term or terms would be more likely[…]